/tech/ - Technology

bruh thread

It would be pretty nice if such thing exists or being developed

Smalltalk

>>18607
What made you think of Smalltalk and any specific version of it?

>>18604
Right tool for the job. Its like asking what drill size is the most communist. Or what nail size is the most communist.

>>18604
>the language itself has to be open-source to prevent possible shutdown from lack if further advances to it from companies
Many people forget that open-source doesn't guarantee community driven development or good software in general. This isn't to say that proprietary software is not often worse in that regard, yet large software vendors like Oracle and Microsoft can only get away with open-sourcing some of their software, because they manage to retain full control over its development process.
Software can only meet this standard if it is conceptually simple or rigorously specified enough to reimplement and if consequently an open implementation exists that can reasonably be maintained by a community driven effort (not the mozilla foundation).
Ada and Common-Lisp are well-specified, comprehensive languages with reliable open-source implementations. C is somewhat complex but has been reimplemented numerous times. IMO the only general-purpose programming languages meeting the criterium of simplicity are Lisp and Forth. I don't know much about Smalltalk, Algol, ML, or the IBM family, so feel free to add any languages I'm missing.
>memory safety and other precautions against potential exploits from bad actors
Common-Lisp and especially Ada should be the safest options. They can even run programs "as fast as C" when optimized correctly.

>>18610
exactly, idiots who fetishize linux or functional programming will never be revolutionary

>>18611
"Community driven development" is a meaningless buzzword.

>>18604
>most anti capitalist programming language
This is like asking what type of CNC lathe is most pro-monarchist or what flower is the most anti-communist. The question is irrelevant nor do programming languages have any such inherent properties, they are tools.
Even If world revolution came tomorrow all the legacy system still needed to be maintained all the same and generally shit needed to get done generally and just switching whole projects to some arbitrary pet project programming language wouldn't be a priority when choosing the right tools for the job and doing the work properly would be the objective number one . Also there still would be industry practices and existing trained workforce and shit. Why thing like java is still widely used is not just about some capitalist plot.

>>18613
Except for the rare case where it isn't.
>>18610
>>18612
>>18614
The OP is full of virtue signaling. Still the question what programming tools to prefer to hold the imminent tendrils of late-stage capitalism at bay is a worthwhile one.
People shouldn't be stupid enough to use VSCode in the case of Microsoft pulling the plug or boiling their froggy asses, but those using it are probably fine exchanging it for anything with enough pretty buttons and smooth scrolling.
>Why thing like java is still widely used is not just about some capitalist plot.
It is though http://www.loper-os.org/?p=69

>>18608
That scene from Golden Boy where the hot anime programmer ladies say that professional programmers don't use beginners' languages like BASIC but instead use Smalltalk.

Perl

>>18619
Perl is the proletarian language
It doesn't need middle-management standardization committees or foundations, it doesn't need corporate or StackExchange or /g/ incel approval, it just is
It became the software backbone of the web through its sheer functionality

>>18620
This is shell script erasure

>>18610
>>18615
I dont even use Linux at least not currently. I never suggested using certain languages is bad or there is a one size fits all language. Im saying outside of personal and limited group projects some proglang is better suited than others for such intent. Has nothing to do with virtues to signal because I dont there is anything wrong with using a language developed by private corporations. It's just a means of what works well or not for long term projects to survive past the original developer's involvement without having to have everyone start over from square one repeatedly because a language development gets dropped by a corporation but isnt able to be developed without it's involvement or just isnt liked so once a company drops it others do in time so you run low on developers that both know the language and also interested in the original project and have the time to do it. Open source stuff being split into many forks and forks of forks or slightly different conceptual copies with different languages takes away from development of something of higher quality and more lasting. Sure you cant predict everything but I just wanted to see what people here think are good languages for this purpose and seems some didnt understand what I was getting at. Just saying if there is any underutilized languages that are very good for certain uses without risk of being held back by porky whims or subjecting one self to backdoors. Im not saying every language has to be incapable of having bugs just when you arent working with a vetted group it's a better idea to have that in such scenarios or at least have a syntax that makes spotting errors easier. Not that something without those guardrails is capitalist, that's not what i meant.
>>18611
Yes open source doesnt always mean it will keep going which is why i was getting opinions on if there is many languages that have potential to become very popular without them being reliant on big tech companies that can hinder them further. It's not the only way to do things just a way. Not every criteria I layed out has to be included I just wanted to see what everyone thinks are good languages in certain combined aspects so i could find a language that id like to learn since im not interested in getting a job coding so I dont have to be bound by what is popular at current time. As for Ada I feel like because the military uses it a lot of the people best at it may work for the government which im not sure if that's an issue security wise or not because they may be aware of some bug others dont know about but maybe im just paranoid. From what Ive heard a fair number of people are liking Zig over C but it may just be a trend i dont know. I heard hackers are getting into using Nim for their pentesting tools though not sure how widespread that is. Im not sure what some of the less widely used languages are good for but im sure some must be gems out there.
>>18614
I was more talking about a parallel within capitalist society today not revolution since in a revolution you would have full access to all the info and developers private companies have so it becomes less relevant where a language came from and why it is popular.

>>18625
Its all about the tradeoffs. If its underutilized then maybe (probably) its not a good language to create a Future Proof(tm) software. You're better off using something like Java if you want to future proof it. Kotlin is a good alternative to Java that you can also expect long term support. I can list even more benefits to using java or kotlin over other languages, but I don't see the point. Note that I'm not a fan of writing Java or Kotlin.

But it really depends on what you're doing. If you're building an embedded system, or some service that needs to be ultra fast, a distributed system, a db, an AI model, a hello world console printer, all might have better alternatives than java/kotklin.

So the question is, what features does your ideal language have and what is the domain or restrictions of the system.

>>18604
unironically C, even though it is not very pleasant to use.
the reasons why it is so
- amazing quality of tools that rae not controlled by corporations (GCC)
- support for pretty much every architecture that exists, ensuring that you aren't dependent on a single hardware manufacturer
- language and standard library is small enough to encourage rapid and wise adoption
- doesn't hide a lot of hardware access away behind the tools giving you more freedom to do what you need

it has some downsides regarding security pitfalls and being harder to use for higher level software, but it's the best we've got for now.
C++ is slowly getting there too, but its complexity works against it IMO and harms easy portability.

I'm not saying ass this as some /g/ tard who fetishizes low level languages, but there really aren't many other options at the moment that are as open and resisting of corporate control as C, maybe if someone built better and more open Rust tools with a GPLed toolchain and support for practically every CPU architecture, we'd have a much safer and more accessible alternative to C.

ALGOL 68
https://www.computer-museum.ru/english/algol68.htm

>>18622
Bash is good too

>>18633
The merit of bash as a scripting shell is debatable. Bash includes many extension to the bourne shell language ('bashims') that scripters are constantly tempted to use. There is no reason for bash to be a gcc build time dependency, yet the configure scripts don't work with an almquist or korn shell.
This is a problem with many GNU programs such as coreutils, flex/bison and gawk. Admittedly gcc extensions were unavoidable.

>>18627
>If its underutilized then maybe (probably) its not a good language to create a Future Proof(tm) software.
Not necessarily. There are a good number of promising languages Ive hears of in development but just didnt get popular because of limited libraries from being newer. For example even in data science Julia seemingly isnt used as widely as Python (even in this narrow use) despite being faster when handling complex tasks and large amounts of data and despite having a similar syntax to Python but isnt white space sensitive which is the biggest complaint I see made about Python all over. You would think more people would have got on it by now.
>>18629
From what I've heard Zig is supposed to be an attempt to improve on C. Im not sure how well it's living up to it though.
>>18630
Why AGLOL 68? Is it because some Soviet era computers used it?

>>18614

this is a terrible example because specifically the CNC lathe was actually a tool that was intentionally developed to separate planning from production at the cost of material waste, and is one of the clearest cut examples of capitalists choosing winners in technological development out of a series of roughly equivalent possible technological options (such as replay lathes etc)

there's a great book about this called "Forces of Production"

all you idiots complaining about this question don't know a single thing about history of technology, it's a dumb question because OP doesn't understand programming not because tools are value neutral

>>18646
> Why AGLOL 68? Is it because some Soviet era computers used it?
no, i posted that link because i have read it recently but not recently enough to know that it doesn't contain much actual information about the language, for actual reference on the topic the wikipedia article on the topic is worth a read along with the Learning Algol 68 Genie book that includes an elaborated overview on the language, the spec and documentation on Algol 68 Genie, a free as in freedom implementation of the language, here is the link https://jmvdveer.home.xs4all.nl/en.download.algol-68-genie-current.html

i can see it perfectly fitting OP's description of
>what languages would be widely used if what becomes popular wasn't determined by what companies hire for and put money into and the number of people coding in these languages due to past establishment in industry making it predominant.
but sadly that would be is not the case
>also a language with memory safety
it is garbage collected so yes
>precautions against potential exploits from bad actors
i don't that can be within the scope of a language but having a formal description of the language helps nonetheless
>the language itself has to be open source to prevent possible shutdown from lack if further advances to it from companies.
it has FOSS implementations and the spec is freely available

while looking for a book on ALGOL 68 i found this book from 1978 and it caught my attention what the author has to say about computers on the first chapter
>Many people who have only a nodding acquaintance with computers regard
>them as dangerous monsters. Far from being the benign servants that the
>advertisements would have us believe, they seem more like hostile masters,
>sending peremptory reminders for TV, car and dog licences. Computers helped
>to put a man on the Moon but at the same time they can issue a bill for no
>pounds and no pence and take someone to court for non-payment.

>The monster's public face is frightening, but its secret behaviour can be even
>worse. Although it does not yet happen much in practice, it is feasible for the
>computer to use its knowledge about you in ways that you never intended or
>even considered possible. For example, if you visit your doctor to discuss a
>weight problem, and he happens to keep his notes in the memory bank of a
>computer, you might start receiving glossy advertisements for expensive
>slimming aids. Unknown to the doctor, some advertising agency might have
>browsed through the information recorded in the computer and picked out
>your name, and the names of others like you, for mailing shots as particularly
>easy 'sells'. As the law stands in the United Kingdom such behaviour would not
>be illegal.
>This is a very mild example, since an unwanted advertisement would not
>cause you serious annoyance. It does not take much imagination, however, to
>see the possibilities for blackmail, police harassment, and the theft of
>commercial secrets, which are opened up as a result of private information
>being stored in computers. It is true, of course, that much of this information
>was stored in handwritten notes and ledgers before the computer was invented,
>and that snoopers could always have searched them and discovered data that
>they could profitably use. The difference is that, because the information is so
>systematically arranged in the computer, it can be fully inspected by the
>machine itself in a few seconds, and there is usually no trace that the search has
>happened at all.

so he successfully predicted what computers would do, then he proceeds to describe a chatgpt like interface as a "friendly computer" and talks about their risks
>Friendly computer systems cost more than hostile ones because it takes
>more trouble to set them up, but the difference is so slight that in time they may
>become more common. Of course you must be especially wary of the computer
>whose friendly mask enables it to extract information, which is then used
>against your own interests!
i know it doesn't take a genius to predict this but impressive still

>>18648 (cont.)
turns out that ALGOL was rejected from ISO for purely political reasons
https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/algol/algol_bulletin/A50/P1.HTM

>>18647
Depends what you mean by not understanding programming. I never claimed to be an expert or i could have answered my own question. I have done light programming before in a few languages having since forgotten and I know a bit about history of computers and been spending time lately looking into info on various languages popular and obscure seeing what different people that have used them and others say about them and what their developers say. If you mean not having a coding job or degree in computer science then sure yeah. I elaborated in another post already on what I meant in the OP. I dont know what you are suggesting i dont understand and how that is relevant to a pretty simple but drawn out question about what languages are best at certain tasks regardless of how popular or unpopular they are while taking into consideration the kind of capitalist society we live in. Im well aware there is no language that can do everything to perfection or else everyone would use it and I know here and there i may be using wrong terminology and i know languages pushed by companies can be open source and i know different languages have different use cases…. so what did I say wrong? Im just trying to learn and I even checked what thread would be bumped off before posting.
>>18649
Last one sounds like he predicted phishing.

>>18649
>describe a chatgpt like interface as a "friendly computer" and talks about their risks
ELIZA was made in 1966, it's not that hard to predict something that existed for almost a decade.

>>18610
dialectics. even mundane things like screw-heads have become political because shit like proprietary anti-tamper screw heads for consumer goods wouldn't exist in a different mode of production

>>18604
general purpose programming languages? probably those hobbyist projects like zig, odin or nim
but people are in general more interested in domain specific languages and markup/design tools

>Do many languages fit this?
nim, but it is garbage collected

but your question is flawed, in what mode of production would industry trends and demands not affect the popularity of programming languages? it would be irrational

>>18664
Sometimes they call them security screws because they aren't always to keep the owner out but other people by reducing odds they have the right screwdriver. Im not sure they are all proprietary some might not be.
>nim, but it is garbage collected
I am aware of nim. I have seen complaints about it's white space sensitivity. Would be better if they took inspiration from Julia for syntax which is Python like as well but removes the white space sensitivity adding "end" (which i like a bit better than brackets because brackets are easy to mistype and not notice) and also might be good to take some of Julia's performance for some tasks but i dont know what ones would improve performance. What do you think is the better memory managment system if not garbage collected?

>>18604
>What would be the most anti capitalist programming languages?
It's much like asking what are the most anti-capitalist air conditioners. I don't know. Does an air conditioner bear an anti-capitalist quality if developed in a socialist society and distributed via socialist means? I can't begin to imagine how to conceive of an anti-capitalist programming language. Most programming languages are developed by capitalist institutions, whether companies like Microsoft, Google, JetBrains, or universities like M.I.T. Though ropes may be made under Capitalism, I would not argue that such ropes are capitalist ropes, or at least, I would concede that it is unimportant to make such a distinction in this specific case.

>>18665
>I have seen complaints about it's white space sensitivity.
bikeshedding, the semantics are more important

>What do you think is the better memory managment system if not garbage collected?
it depends, it is a trade off, etc. etc. but OP's question was what would be popular, not better
the same could be said about julia optimizations and runtime, that's the problem of general purpose languages

>>18667
>anti-capitalist air conditioners.
Passive heating/cooling but otherwise non proprietary easy to source parts in an open hardware with a schematic provided.
>>18668
I am OP. When I said popular I meant so coder friendly but with good performance it would have to become popular if given enough freedom for people to choose such things over standards that may or may not be good. I know it's a weird way of putting it. For personal projects best language is whatever an individual wants they can handle. For small limited group projects what is best depends on their skill levels and personal preferences tthey can agree on together. For long term open source projects you need something that would appeal to enough people to keep it going and since you can't gaurantee every contributer is a good programmer you would need a language that has some idiot proofing without sacrificing too much for those of high skill level so you dont wind up with exploits in operating systems and programs that take a long time to find by people that would patch it instead of use it maliciously. These could be general purpose or purpose built languages. This is basically the principle i was going on.

>>18669
trains are anti-capitalist technology

I understand your question, even if it is counter-factual and utopian. my first guess as I said would be those hobbyist languages that people use in their spare time. but even then, I have met people at my job that honestly like corporate tools like tfvc or adabas
people in this field are weird, specially those that only program at work

I guess you were expecting replies like
>all rust programmers and HN users will be relocated to collective farms hundreds of kilometers away from the nearest transistor

>>18676
I think it's more utopian to think you can always rely on a big tech company to support these tools indefinitely rather than replace them at whim. Using corporate tools is fine but it needs to be considered they can be dropped at any moment and you cant expect it would suddenly be kept going in the public sphere for long if it didnt already stand on it's own without big tech money and demands. Sure it may be the case for some things to survive though so long as they are open source and well documented and people legitimately like them rather than only like them because the limited options tech companies allow them to work with. I also know smaller tech companies sometimes let their coders have more freedom on what they use ive heard.

>>18681
Actually when i said smaller tech companies i really more meant startups.